In May year 1994, ABS-CBN” agreed upon an Agreement with all the Mel and Jay Managing and Creation Corporation. ABS-CBN was displayed by the corporate representatives while MJMDC was symbolized by SONZA, as President and General Manager, and Carmela Tiangco, as EVP and Treasurer. Referred to inside the Agreement because “AGENT, ” MJMDC agreed to provide SONZA’s services specifically to ABS-CBN as talent for radio and tv set. ABS-CBN decided to pay for SONZA’s services monthly talent cost of P310, 000 to get the initially year and P317, 1000 for the other and third year from the Agreement.
ABS-CBN might pay the talent fees on the tenth and twenty fifth days of the month. About 30 Apr 1996, SONZA filed a complaint against ABS-CBN prior to Department of Labor and Employment, Nationwide Capital Region in Quezon City. SONZA complained that ABS-CBN did not pay his salaries, parting pay, assistance incentive leave pay, thirteenth month pay, signing reward, travel allowance and sums due underneath the Employees Stock Option Program (“ESOP”). About 10 This summer 1996, ABS-CBN filed a Motion to Dismiss on the floor that not any employer-employee romantic relationship existed between your parties.
CONCERN: Whether or not there exists employer-employee relationship that persisted between them
KEPT: Although Philippine labor laws and tendu define clearly the components of an employer-employee relationship, this can be the first time the Court can resolve the size of the relationship between a television set and a radio station station and one of its “talents. ” There is absolutely no case legislation stating a radio and television plan host can be an employee from the broadcast train station.
Applying the control test to the present case, we find that SONZA is definitely not an employee but an self-employed contractor. The control check is the most important evaluation our tennis courts apply in distinguishing a worker from an independent contractor. This test is dependent on the level of control the hirer exercises on the worker. More suitable the supervision and control the hirer exercises, the much more likely the employee is deemed an employee.
The converse is true as well – the less control the hirer physical exercises, the more likely the worker is regarded as an independent contractor. We find that ABS-CBN has not been involved in the actual performance that produced the finished item of SONZA’s work. ABS-CBN did not teach SONZA tips on how to perform his job. ABS-CBN merely arranged the right to modify the program format and air time schedule “for more effective development. ” ABS-CBN’s sole concern was the quality of the displays and their browsing the ratings. Clearly, ABS-CBN did not workout control over the means and methods of efficiency of SONZA’s work. SONZA insists which the “exclusivity clause” in the Contract is the most serious form of control which ABS-CBN exercised over him.
This kind of argument is futile. For being an exclusive expertise does not alone mean that SONZA is a worker of ABS-CBN. Even a completely independent contractor can validly offer his providers exclusively towards the hiring party. In the transmitted industry, uniqueness is not really the same as control.
ADJUDICATION: The petition is denied.
CONSULTA vs FLORIDA Case Break down
[G. R. Number 145443. Drive 18, 2005]
RAQUEL L. CONSULTA, petitioner, vs . THE COURTROOM OF SPEAKS, PAMANA PHILIPPINES, INC., RAZUL Z. REQUESTO, and REMO TOLENTINO, participants.
FACTS: Consulta was Controlling Associate of Pamana. On 1987 your woman was released a recognition authorizing her to discuss for and in behalf of PAMANA with all the Federation of Filipino Civilian Employees Affiliation. Consulta could secure an account with FFCEA in account of PAMANA. However , Pregunta claimed that PAMANA did not pay her commission for the PPCEA account and filed a complaint for unpaid income or commission payment.
ISSUE: Whether Consulta was an employee of PAMANA.
ORGANISED: The SC held that Pamana was an independent agent and not a staff.
The power of control in the four fold check is lacking. The manner through which Consulta was to pursue her tasked actions was not be subject to the control
of PAMANA. Discutir failed to demonstrate that your woman worked certain hours. The amount of time, the techniques and means, the supervision and maintenance of her sales division were left to her sound judgment.
Finally, Pamana paid Pregunta not for labor she performed but simply for the benefits of her labor. With no results, Consulta’s labor was her personal burden and loss. Her right to settlement, or to percentage, depended on the tangible effects of her work – whether she brought in paying out recruits.
The very fact that the session required Consulta to solicit business specifically for Pamana did not mean Pamana worked out control over the means and methods of Consulta’s work as the definition of control can be understood in labor jurisprudence. Neither made it happen make Respuesta an employee of Pamana. Pamana did not stop Consulta coming from engaging in some other business, or from being connected with any other company, intended for as long as the business or company did not take on Pamana’s business.
The exclusivity clause was a reasonable constraint to prevent related acts lesiva to Pamana’s business interest. Article 1306 of the Detrimental Code gives that “[t]this individual contracting get-togethers may set up such arrangement, clauses, terms and conditions as they may well deem practical, provided that they may be not contrary to law, morals, good traditions, public buy, or community policy.
Delete word no employer-employee relationship between Pamana and Consulta, the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC had zero jurisdiction to entertain and rule on Consulta’s money claim. Consulta’s remedy is always to file a regular civil action to litigate her claim
Request is terminated.
ANGELINA FRANCISCO, Petitioner, versus NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS PERCENTAGE, KASEI ORGANIZATION, SEIICHIRO TAKAHASHI, TIMOTEO ACEDO, DELFIN LIZA, IRENE BALLESTEROS, TRINIDAD DISPUTA and RAMON ESCUETA, Participants. G. L. No . 170087 August 23, 2006
FIRST DIVISION. YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In 1995, petitioner was hired by Kasei Corporation during its use stage. She was specified as Accountant and Corporate Admin and was assigned to take care of all the accounting needs of the company. Your woman was also designated since Liaison Officer to the City of Makati to obtain business enables, construction allows and other licenses for the original operation with the company. Though she was designated since Corporate Admin, she had not been entrusted while using corporate papers; neither would she go to any table meeting neither required to do so. She never prepared any kind of legal document and never displayed the company as the Corporate Admin.
However , upon some situations, she was prevailed after to indication documentation for the company. In 1996, petitioner was specified Acting Manager. As Operating Manager, petitioner was assigned to handle recruitment of all employees and perform management government functions; represent the company in all of the dealings with government agencies; and administer all the other matters associated with the procedure of Kasei Restaurant which can be owned and operated by Kasei Firm. For five years, petitioner performed the duties of Acting Director and as of December 31, 2000 her salary was P27, five-hundred. 00 plus P3, 1000. 00. In January 2001, petitioner was replaced by simply Liza L. Fuentes because Manager.
Petitioner alleged that she was required to signal a ready resolution on her behalf replacement nevertheless she was assured that she would be connected with Kasei Corporation. Afterwards, Kasei Organization reduced her salary simply by P2, 500. 00 a month beginning January up to September 2001 to get a total reduction of P22, 500. 00 as of Sept. 2010 2001. Petitioner was not paid out her mid-year bonus allegedly because the company was not making well. In October 2001, petitioner would not receive her salary through the company.
The girl made repeated follow-ups while using company cashier but your woman was advised that the firm was not getting well. Upon October 15, 2001, petitioner asked for her salary but she was informed that she is no more connected with the business. On the other hand, the Private respondents averred that petitioner is definitely not an worker of Kasei Corporation. They alleged that petitioner was hired in 1995 as one of its technological consultants upon accounting issues and work concurrently while Corporate Admin.
As specialized consultant, petitioner performed her work at her own discernment without control and supervision of Kasei Corporation. Petitioner experienced no daily time record and the girl came to work any time your woman wanted. She also did not go through the usual procedure of collection of employees. Likewise, the exclusive respondents posted a list of workers for the years 1999 and 2000 properly received by BIR demonstrating that petitioner was not among the employees reported to the BIR. Issues:
(1) Whether there was an employer-employee relationship between petitioner and respondent Kasei Corporation; of course, if in the yes, (2) if petitioner was illegally dismissed. Ruling:
Yes. The the courtroom adopts a two-tiered test involving: (1) the putative employer’s capacity to control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which the work is to be completed; and (2) the actual economic realities of the activity or marriage. Thus, undoubtedly that petitioner is a staff of Kasei Corporation since she was under the direct control and supervision of Seiji Kamura, the corporation’s Technical Consultant.
She reported for function regularly and served in a variety of capacities as Accountant, Addition Officer, Specialized Consultant, Behaving Manager and company Secretary, with substantially precisely the same job features, that is, object rendering accounting and tax solutions to the organization and carrying out functions important and desired for the correct operation with the corporation such as securing organization permits and other licenses above an indefinite length of engagement. The lady was picked and interested by the organization for payment, and is monetarily dependent upon respondent for her extended employment in this line of business. Respondent corporation employed and interested petitioner to get compensation, together with the power to write off her to get cause.
Most importantly, respondent organization had the power to control petitioner with the means and strategies by which the task is to be completed. The corporation constructively dismissed petitioner when it lowered her earnings by P2, 500 per month from January to September 2001. This kind of amounts to the illegal termination of work, where the petitioner is allowed to full backwages.
Thus this petition can be GRANTED which is REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for the recomputation of petitioner Angelina Francisco’s complete backwages in the time the girl was illegally terminated until the date of finality of the decision, and separation pay out representing one-half month purchase every year of service, where a fraction of at least six months will be considered as a single whole 12 months. ANGEL TERRAIN, DEMETRIO CALAGOS, URBANO MARCOS, ROSENDO MARCOS, LUIS DE AQUELLAS ANGELES, JOEL ORDENIZA and AMADO CENTENO, petitioners, vs . NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC) and GOODMAN TAXI CAB (PHILJAMA FOREIGN, INC. ) respondents. G. R. Number 119268. February 23, 2k
SECOND DEPARTMENT. QUISUMBING, M.
Petitioners were individuals of private surveys takers, Philjama International Inc., a domestic corporation engaged in the operation of “Goodman Cab. ” Petitioners used to drive private respondent’s taxicabs alternate day on a 24-hour work schedule within the boundary program.
Under this kind of arrangement, the petitioners received an average of P400. 00 daily. Nevertheless, exclusive respondent of course regularly subtracts from petitioners, daily income the amount of P30. 00 apparently for the washing of the taxi devices. Believing the fact that deduction is definitely illegal, petitioners decided to form a labor union to safeguard their privileges and passions.
Upon researching the plan of petitioners, private respondent refused to let petitioners drive their particular taxicabs when they reported for work on Aug 6, 1991, and on making it days. Petitioners suspected that they were designated because they were the commanders and energetic members in the proposed union. Aggrieved, petitioners filed while using labor arbiter a grievance against non-public respondent pertaining to unfair labor practice, against the law dismissal and illegal deductions of cleansing fees. In a decision, old August 23, 1992, the labor arbiter dismissed said complaint intended for lack of value. On charm, the NLRC (public surveys takers herein), in a decision out dated April twenty-eight, 1994, reversed and set aside the wisdom of the labor arbiter.
The labor cort�ge declared that petitioners will be employees of personal respondent, and, as such, their very own dismissal should be for just cause and after credited process. Exclusive respondent’s 1st motion intended for reconsideration was denied. Remaining hopeful, private respondent recorded another movement for reconsideration. This time, general public respondent, in its decision out dated October twenty-eight, 1994, granted aforesaid second motion intended for reconsideration. This ruled that it lacks legal system over the case as petitioners and private respondent have no employer-employee relationship. Issue:
Was generally there a grave abuse of discretion amounting to absence or more than jurisdiction?
Was presently there an employer-employee relationship?
Yes. The phrase “grave abuse of discretion amounting to shortage or excess of jurisdiction” means such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment by the tribunal working out judicial or perhaps quasi-judicial electric power as to figure to lack of electrical power. In this case, personal respondent worn out administrative solution available to it by looking for reconsideration of public respondent’s decision went out with April 28, 1994, which will public surveys takers denied. Thus, when personal respondent recorded a second movement for reconsideration, public respondent should have forthwith denied it in accordance with Guideline 7, Section 14 of its Fresh Rules of Procedure that enables only one motion for reconsideration from the same party.
The explanation for allowing only one action for reconsideration from the same party is to assist the parties in obtaining an expeditious and inexpensive settlement of labor situations. For evident reasons, delays cannot be countenanced in the quality of labor disputes. The dispute may involve at least the sustenance of an worker and that of his loved ones who will be dependent upon him for food, shelter, apparel, medicine, and education. It might as well entail the endurance of a organization or a market.
The second motion for reconsideration filed simply by private respondent is indubitably a prohibited pleading that ought to have not recently been entertained at all. Thus, people respondent gravely abused the discretion in taking cognizance and approving private respondent’s second action for reconsideration as it accidents the organized procedure in seeking bosse in labor cases. Certainly also pertaining to the second concern. Under the border system which can be observed in the relationship of the petitioners and the exclusive respondent, it is that of employer-employee and not of lessor-lessee. Regarding jeepney owners/operators and jeepney drivers, the former exercise guidance and control of the latter.
The management in the business is in the owner’s hands. The owner as holder from the certificate of public comfort must see to it that the driver uses the route recommended by the franchising authority as well as the rules enacted as regards the operation. At this point, the fact the drivers tend not to receive fixed wages but get only that more than the so-called “boundary” they pay towards the owner/operator is definitely not enough to pull away the relationship together from that of employer and employee.
Therefore, the employees of personal respondent, could be dismissed just for just and authorized cause, and after giving them recognize and hearing prior to termination. In the fast case, non-public respondent had no valid cause to terminate the employment of petitioners. Nor were there two (2) created notices directed by personal respondent educating each of the petitioners that they was dismissed coming from work. Thus, instant petition is APPROVED. Private respondent is directed to reinstate petitioners to their positions held in the time the lamented dismissal. Private respondent is usually likewise purchased to pay out petitioners their particular full backwages, to be calculated from the date of termination until their actual reinstatement.
However , the order of public respondent that petitioners be refunded the amount paid as cleaning charges can be deleted.
[G. R. No . 121605. February two, 2000]
SERENIDAD MARTIN JO and ACABAR JO, petitioners, vs . NATIONAL LABOR CONTACT COMMISSION and PETER MEJILA, respondents. QUISUMBING, J.:
Private respondent Peter Mejila worked since barber on the piece price basis in Dina’s Barber Shop. The owners and the barbers shared in the income of the klipper (daglig tale) shop. In 1977, petitioners designated personal respondent as caretaker with the shop.
In November 1992, private surveys takers had an division with his co-barber, Jorge Tinoy. The bickerings, characterized by continuous exchange of private insults during working hours, became significant so that private respondent reported the matter to Atty. Allan Macaraya from the labor office. Meanwhile, private respondent ongoing reporting pertaining to work at the barbershop. But , on January 2, 93, he turned over the duplicate keys in the shop to the cashier and took away every his items therefrom.
On January eight, 1993, he began working being a regular barber at the newly opened Goldilocks Barbershop also in Iligan City. About January 12, 1993, private respondent recorded a problem for unlawful dismissal with prayer intended for payment of separation pay out, other financial benefits, attorney’s fees and damages. Significantly, the issue did not seek reinstatement as being a positive comfort. ISSUES:
Can there be an employer-employee relationship between petitioners and private respondent? Was the private surveys takers dismissed from his career?
YES. In determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, the subsequent elements are considered: (1) the selection and involvement of the staff; (2) benefits of dismissal; (3) the repayment of income by whatever means; and (4) the energy to control the worker’s execute, with the latter assuming primacy in the general consideration. Lacking a clear showing that petitioners and private respondent had meant to pursue a relationship of industrial partnership, we entertain without a doubt that personal respondent was employed by petitioners as caretaker-barber.
No . The labor arbiter was persuaded that non-public respondent has not been dismissed yet left his work on his own r�solution because he may no longer endure the constant squabbles together with his co-worker. However, public surveys takers did not give credence to petitioners’ declare that private surveys takers abandoned his job. About this score, general public respondent gravely erred since hereunder discussed.
JPL PROMOTING PROMOTIONS v. COURT OF APPEALS
G. Ur. No . 151966 July almost 8, 2005
FACTS: JPL Marketing and Promotions can be described as domestic organization engaged in the business enterprise of recruitment and keeping of workers. However, private participants Noel Gonzales, Ramon Abesa III and Faustino Aninipot were utilized by JPL because merchandisers on separate dates and assigned at several establishments in Naga Metropolis and Daet, Camarines Aspiracion as attendants to the display of Washington dc Marketing Firm, one of petitioner’s clients.
In 13 Aug 1996, JPL notified private respondents that CMC would stop the direct selling activity in the Bicol Place, Isabela, and Cagayan Valley effective 15 August 1996. they were suggested to wait for more notice because they would be transferred to other consumers. However , on 17 Oct 1996, exclusive respondents Abesa and Gonzales filed ahead of the
National Labor Relationships Commission Local Arbitration Branch (NLRC) Bass speaker V complaints for against the law dismissal, praying for separating pay, thirteenth month pay out, service motivation leave spend and repayment for moral damages. Aninipot filed a similar case thereafter.
Executive Labor Arbiter Gelacio L. Regato, Jr. dismissed the issues for deficiency of merit. The Labor Arbiter found that Gonzales and Abesa applied with and were employed by the store exactly where they were formerly assigned by JPL even before the course of the six (6)-month period given by law to JPL to provide private respondents a new assignment. As a result, they may be considered to have unilaterally severed their relation with JPL, and cannot charge JPL with illegal termination. The Labor Arbiter placed that it was incumbent upon private respondents to await until they were reassigned by simply JPL, of course, if after half a year they were not reassigned, they will file an action for splitting up pay but is not for unlawful dismissal.
The claims intended for 13th month pay and service bonus leave pay out was as well denied as private respondents were paid out way over a applicable minimum wage during their employment.
NLRC. agreed while using Labor Arbiter’s finding that the moment private respondents filed their complaints, the six-month period had not but expired, which CMC’s decision to stop the operations inside the areas was beyond the control of JPL, thus, these people were not intend to dismissed. However , it discovered that despite JPL’s hard work to look for customers to which non-public respondents could possibly be reassigned it absolutely was unable to do it, and hence they may be entitled to parting pay.
The Court of Appeals ignored the request and established in toto the NLRC resolution. While conceding that there was not any illegal dismissal, it justified the award of parting pay because of equity and social justice.
ISSUE: Set up respondents have entitlement to separation spend?
HELD: Under Arts. 283 and 284 of the Labor Code, parting pay can be authorized
only in the case opf dismissals as a result of any of these factors: (a) installing of labor conserving devices; (b) redundancy; (c) retrenchment; (d) cessation in the employer’s business; and (e) when the worker is struggling with a disease and his continued work is forbidden by law or is prejudicial to his health and for the health of his co-employees.
However , splitting up pay will be allowed as being a measure of social justice in those circumstances where the staff is validly dismissed intended for causes apart from serious wrong doings or individuals reflecting on his moral figure, but only when he was unlawfully dismissed.
Additionally , Sec. 4(b), Rule I actually, Book NI of the Implementing Rules to Implement the Labor Code provides for the payment of separation shell out to an worker entitled to reinstatement but the establishment where he is to be reinstated features closed or has stopped operations or his present position has disappeared at the time of reinstatement for causes not attributable to the employer.
The regular denominator of the instances wherever payment of separation pay out is called for is that the staff was ignored by the workplace. In the immediate case, there was no termination to speak of. Private participants were not really dismissed by any means, whether legally or unlawfully. What they received from JPL was not a notice of termination of employment, yet a memo informing these people of the termination of CMC’s contract with JPL. More importantly, they were advised that they may be reassigned. During that time, there was zero severance of employment of talking of.
Furthermore, Art. 286 of the Labor Code permits the genuine suspension in the operation of your business or undertaking for a period certainly not exceeding six (6) several weeks, wherein a great employee/employees are put on the so-called “floating position. ” Once that “floating status” associated with an employee lasts for more than 6 months, he may be regarded as to have recently been illegally dismissed from the assistance. Thus, he is entitled to the corresponding benefits for his parting, and this would apply to postponement, interruption either of the entire organization or of any specific part thereof.
As clearly borne out by records with this case, private respondents searched for employment from other establishments could the expiration of the six (6)-month period provided by regulation. As they accepted in their brief review, all three of which applied for and were employed by another business after they received the recognize from JPL. JPL would not terminate their particular employment; they will themselves cut their associations with JPL. Thus, they can be not eligible for separation shell out.
Nonetheless, JPL cannot break free the payment of thirteenth month shell out and assistance incentive keep pay to private respondents. Said rewards are required by law and really should be given to employees like a matter of right.
HYDRO RESOURCES CONTRACTORS COMPANY, petitioner
LABOR ARBITER ADRIAN D. PAGALILAUAN plus the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, public participants, and ROGELIO A. ABAN, private respondent G. L. No . L-62909 April 18, 1989
Petitioner corporation hired the exclusive respondent Aban as its “Legal Assistant” and received basic monthly income of P 1, 500. 00 as well as an initial living allowance of P 60. 00 which usually gradually increased to G 320. 00. On Sept. 2010 4, 80, Aban received a notification from the organization informing him that he would be considered terminated effective October 4, 1980 because of his alleged inability to perform his duties very well. Aban submitted a grievance against the petitioner for illegal dismissal. The labor arbiter ruled that Aban was illegally dismissed.
This judgment was affirmed by the NLRC on charm. Hence, this kind of present request. ISSUE: Regardless of whether there was a great employer-employee marriage between the petitioner Corporation and Aban. PLACED: The Great Court dismissed the request for insufficient merit, and reinstate Aban to his former or maybe a similar location without loss in seniority rights and to shell out three (3) years again wages without qualification or deduction and P5, 1000. 00 in attorney’s costs. Should reinstatement not be feasible, the petitioner shall pay the private surveys takers termination rewards in addition to the above stated three years back shell out and P5, 000. 00 attorney’s charges. A lawyer, like any other specialist, may very well be a worker of a personal corporation or maybe of the govt.
This Courtroom has constantly ruled the determination of whether or not there is an employer-employee relationship depends upon four standards: (1) the manner of selection and engagement of the putative worker; (2) the mode of payment of wages; (3) the existence or lack of a power of dismissal; and (4) the presence or absence of a power to control the putative employee’s carry out.
Of the several, the right-of-control test have been held to be the decisive aspect. In this case, Aban received standard salary in addition living allocation, worked entirely for the petitioner, worked only with legal issues involving the said corporation as well as employees and in addition assisted the Personnel Official in finalizing appointment papers of employees which is not work of a attorney in the exercise of his profession. These types of facts demonstrated that petitioner has the power to use and open fire the surveys takers employee plus more important, practiced control over Aban by defining the responsibilities and features of his work which in turn met the four requirements in identifying whether or not there exists an employee-employer relationship.
Duncan Association of Detailman-PTGWO sixth is v. Glaxo WellcomePhilippines G. L. No . 162994
Sept 17, 20004
Glaxo Wellcome Philippines Inc. appointed Pedro A. Tecson because medical representative on March 24, 1995. In Tecson’s contract of employment, it was stipulated, amongst others, that this individual agrees to study and abide by existing business rules; to disclose to management any existing or long term relationship simply by consanguinity or affinity with co-employees or employees of competing medicine companies and really should management find that such romantic relationship poses any conflict of interest, to resign from your company. Glaxo’s Employee Code of Carry out also is made up of provisions towards the same result. Said contract was agreed upon by Tecson and hence commenced his use with the organization. He was given to cover the Camarines Sur-Camarines Nortesales area.
Tecson met Bettsy, a branch coordinator of Astra Pharma, a competitor of Glaxo. Because fate could have it, that they eventually became adoringly obsessed and got hitched in Sept. 2010 1998. Tecson’s superiors were worried considering that the marriage gave rise into a conflict of interest and so, gave him the option to choose whether to stay with the business and let his wife decide from her job or Tecson him self will resign so that his wife may possibly continue dealing with her firm.
Tecson under no circumstances made a decision therefore Glaxo moved to transfer Tecson to the Butuan-Surigao-Agusan del En allant sur sales location considering that he was from stated area. However, Tecson helped bring the matter to Glaxo’s Complaint Committee. During the pendency in the grievance process, Tecson was paid his salary. Nevertheless , he was certainly not issued types of products that have been competing with similar products manufactured by Astra. They did not resolve the conflict therefore they posted the matter for voluntary arbitration.
The company presented Tecson a separation pay of one-half month spend on every year of service, yet he declined the offer. The Nationwide Conciliation and Mediation Plank decided for Glaxo. The Board declared Glaxo’s coverage on interactions between its employees and person applied with competition companies while valid, and affirmed Glaxo’s right to copy Tecson to a different sales area. Upon appeal, the Enclos of Appeal affirmed the NCMB decision. It reasoned that the company’s policy is known as a valid work out of the management prerogatives. Tecson submitted for reconsideration but was denied hence the situation was brought to the Supreme Court.
1 ) Whether the plan of a pharmaceutical drug company prohibiting its staff from getting married to employees of any competitor company valid? 2 . If said coverage violates the equal safeguard clause with the Constitution? 3. Whether Tecson was constructively dismissed?
1 . Yes. Glaxo has a right to guard the secrets, manufacturing formula, sales strategies and other private programs and information coming from competitors, specifically so that it and Astra happen to be rival companies in the extremely competitive pharmaceutical drug industry. The said prohibition only should protect the interests resistant to the possibility which a competitor business will access its secrets and types of procedures.
No . the policy does not violate the equal security clause in the Constitution. Glaxo does not can charge an absolute forbidance against interactions between it is employees and those of competition companies. Not necessarily a policy against marriage. A worker can still get married to anyone of his/her very own choosing. Yet , the company still has the right from exercising administration prerogatives to make certain maximum revenue and business success. It absolutely was also pressured that Tecson was mindful of the limitation when he agreed upon his career contract and when he committed Betssy. Consequently, he is stopped from questioning said policy. 3. No . the Supreme Court dominated that Tecson’s reassignment to another area was not equivalent to his employment termination.
Tecson had not been demoted nor unduly discriminated upon by simply reason of such copy. It must be mentioned that Glaxo even considered the welfare of Tecson’s family members. The reassignment was basically on keeping with the plan of the organization in avoidance of conflict with client positions], and thus valid.
ANDRES VILLAVILLA and ESTER GADIENTE VILLAVILLA v. COURTROOM OF IS OF INTEREST, SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, REYNALDO MERCADO, and MARCELO COSUCO, respondents, INTERPERSONAL SECURITY SYSTEM G. R. No . 79664 Aug 11, 1992
Reynaldo Lugar owned the fishing boat “F/B Saint Theresa. On Sept. 2010 11, 1877, said vessel sank off Isla Binatikan, Taytay, Palawan. One of the casualties in stated incident was Arturo Villavilla, son of petitioners. Having been employed since “tripulante” (crew member). The parents of Arturo filed a petition while using Social Reliability Commission against Reynaldo Lugar for fatality compensation benefits associated with Arturo which Reynaldo did not register because their employee.
The Social Security alarm (SSS) registered a petition in treatment alleging that petitioners must prove that Arturo was a worker of Reynaldo. If said employment was proven, then Reynaldo should be held responsible in damage equivalent to the advantages due the petitioners pertaining to failure to report Arturo for insurance pursuant to Sec. twenty-four (a) from the Social Secureness Act, since amended. 6On November twenty eight, 1984, respondent Social Security Commission granted an Order dismissing the petition to get lack of reason behind action. being unfaithful The parents of Arturo after that brought their case to the Court of Appeals. Upon appeal, the CA confirmed the asked Order in the Social Secureness Commission there being no invertible error. Hence, they raised their case to the Best Court. PROBLEMS:
1 . If there was an employer – employee relationship between Arturo Villavilla and Reynaldo Mercado? installment payments on your Whether Reynaldo Mercado is likely for loss of life compensation benefits associated with Arturo Villavilla? 3. Whether there was a violation from the Social Secureness Act, while amended, by Reynaldo Lugar for not registering Arturo Villavilla with the Program as his employee because mandated legally.
1) non-e. The set up between the vessel owner as well as the crewmembers partook of the characteristics of a joint venture. The fundamental bases for the existence of an employer – employee relationship were not present. a) Reynaldo Mercado experienced no reference to the selection and engagement of Arturo. The sevyloyr fish hunter 360 owner would not hire all of them but they just joined the fishing journey upon invite of the ship master, without even the knowledge from the boat owner. b) Reynaldo likewise exercised no benefits of dismissal over Arturo c) There was zero such consistent salary included.
The team members did not receive set compensation because they only distributed in their catch. d) Reynaldo had simply no power of control or acquired reserved the justification to control regarding the result of the job to be done as well as the means and methods by which a similar is to be accomplished. They ventured to the marine irrespective of the recommendations of the fishing boat owner. After their own greatest judgment about when, the length of time, and the best fishing. 2) No . As there was no employer – employee relationship, then Ramo is not really obliged to remit any employer’s efforts to the SSS accounts of said anglers. Hence they can compel him to pay for any death compensation benefits. 3) None of them. As it is difficult to determine the month-to-month wage or earning in the fishermen when it comes to fixing the quantity of their as well as the supposed employer’s contributions, there exists every purpose to exempt the celebrations to this sort of undertaking coming from compulsory sign up with the Sociable Security System.
*** the Best Court stated:
To get, we are certainly not unaware that in this jurisdiction all doubts in the setup and presentation of provisions of sociable legislations should be resolved in favor of the working school. But , sadly, justice can be not totally served by sustaining the contention from the poor simply because he is poor. Justice is done by properly applying the law regardless of the station in life from the contending parties.
NATIONAL SUPPORT CORPORATION (NASECO) AND ARTURO L. PEREZ, petitioners, vs .
THE HONORABLE THIRD DIVISION, NATIONWIDE LABOR RELATIONSHIPS COMMISSION, MINISTRY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, MANILA AND EUGENIA C. CREDO, respondents. G. 3rd there�s r. No . L-69870 November 30, 1988
EUGENIA C. CONSCIENCE, petitioner
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION RATE, NATIONAL SOLUTIONS CORPORATION AND ARTURO L. PEREZ, participants. G. Ur. No . 70295 November 30, 1988
EXPOSITOR: Padilla, T.
Eugenia Credo was an employee of the National Assistance Corporation. The girl was ended from workplace for the commission of offenses against company guidelines, public ethical, and power. A particular situation asserted by NASECO was Credo’s non-compliance with one more NASECO officer’s memorandum about the entry procedures in the business Statement of Billings Realignment. This was in place with the results of NASECO’s Committee upon Personnel Affairs.
Both parties appealed to surveys takers National Labor Relations Commission payment (NLRC) which, on twenty eight November 1984, rendered a choice: 1) directing NASECO to reinstate Principios to her previous position, or perhaps substantially equal position, with six (6) months’ backwages and without lack of seniority privileges and other benefits appertaining thereto, and 2) dismissing Credo’s claim intended for attorney’s fees, moral and exemplary damage. As a consequence, both parties filed their very own respective motions for reconsideration, which the NLRC denied within a resolution of 16 January 1985.
In case at bar, the court docket found that NASECO would not comply with these guidelines in effecting Credo’s dismissal. Though she was apprised and “given the chance to explain her side” from the charges registered against her, this opportunity was given therefore perfunctorily, thus rendering illusory Credo’s right to security of tenure. That Credo was not given sufficient opportunity to become heard and to defend very little is obvious from the reality the compliance with the injunction to apprise her of the charges submitted against her and to manage her a chance to prepare for her defense was dispensed in just a day.
This is not effective complying with the with legal requirements. Furth, Credo’s mere non-compliance with Lorens memorandum regarding the entry methods in the provider’s Statement of Billings Realignment did not bring about the severe penalty of dismissal
NLRC ruled ordering her reinstatement. NASECO argues that NLRC has no legislation to buy her reinstatement. NASECO as being a government company by virtue of it is being a supplementary of the NIDC, which is totally owned by Phil. National Bank which can be in turn a GOCC, the terms and conditions of employment of its staff are ruled by the Municipal Service Regulation citing Countrywide Housing versus Juco. ISSUE: Whether or not employees of NASECO, a GOCC without unique charter, are governed by Civil Service Law. ORGANISED: NO .
The holding in NHC v Juco must not be given retroactive effect, that may be to cases that came about before their promulgation of January 17, 1985. To do otherwise would be oppressive to Credo and other employees likewise situated because under the 1973 Constitution prior to the ruling in NHC sixth is v Juco, this kind of court known the applicability of the Labor jurisdiction more than disputes including terms and conditions of employment in GOCC’s, most notable NASECO. In the matter of coverage by civil support of GOCC, the 1987 Constitution starkly differs from the 1973 Cosmetic where NHC v Juco was primarily based.
It provides the “civil assistance embraces almost all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies in the Government including government held or handled corporation with original hire. ” Therefore by obvious implication, the civil services does not include GOCC which are prepared as subsidiaries of GOCC under the basic corporation law.
ADJUDICATION: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the challenged decision with the NLRC can be AFFIRMED with modifications. Petitioners in G. R. No . 69870, who have are the exclusive respondents in G. L. No . 70295, are bought to: 1) reinstate Eugenia C. Principios to her ex – position during her termination, or if perhaps such reinstatement is difficult, to place her in a greatly equivalent placement, with three (3) years backwages, coming from 1 12 , 1983, with no qualification or perhaps deduction, minus loss of eldership elders rights and other privileges appertaining thereto, and 2) pay Eugenia C. Credo P5, 000. 00 for moral damages and P5, 000. 00 pertaining to attorney’s costs.
G. 3rd there�s r. No . 78090 July 26, 1991
PACIFIC MILLS, INC., petitioner
ZENAIDA ALONZO, surveys takers.
Via July 40, 1973, Zenaida Alonzo was employed being a ring body operator inside the Pacific Generators, Inc. right up until September 30, 1982 when she was discharged simply by Management. The record shows that in the early afternoon of September 22, 1982, Zenaida challenged Firm Inspector Ernesto Tamondong to a fight, stating: “Putang Ina mo, lumabas ka, tarantado, kalalaki mong tao, duwag ka..
Ipagugulpi kita social fear labas by kaya kitang ipakaladkad wiewohl sa loob ng compound palabas ng gate social fear mga kamag-anak ko. ” And meeting action to the word, your woman thereupon boxed Tamondong inside the stomach.
The motive to get the assault was Zenaida’s resentment by having been penalized, together with other employees, two days earlier by Tamondong for wasting period by engaging in Idle chatter. 1 Tamondong forthwith reported the event to the business’s Administrative Manager 2 plus the Chairman of Barangay Balombato, Quezon Metropolis. 3 About September 30, 1982, Zenaida Alonzo was handed a Memorandum by the industry�s Executive Vice President & Standard Manager terminating her job as of March 1, 1982 on different grounds: poor work, regular absences and tardiness, wasting time, insubordination and low disrespect. The service of that memorandum of dismissal on her was not preceded by virtually any complaint, experiencing or additional formality.
These were apparently deemed unnecessary by Management 4 in view of the provision in the Company Rules and Regulations (embodied in the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the company as well as the union representing the employees) that: Fighting or looking to inflict problems for another employee, will render (sic) the aggressor to outright termination. It was only at the reading of the complaint for against the law dismissal (and nonpayment of proportionate 13th month pay) instituted simply by Zenaida in October some, 1982 inside the NCR Settlement Branch, that evidence was presented by the company not merely of the attack by Zenaida on her remarkable but likewise of many different violations by her of company regulations, in an attempt to substantiate the quality of her dismissal by work. The Labor
Arbiter found that Alonzo experienced indeed by speaking abused and struck her superior, Tamondong, and declined her contention that the invasion was not punishable since it was “not work-connected and was provoked/instigated simply by Ernesto Tamondong. ” a few The Arbiter also declared as “fully established the previous infractions of complainant, ” these staying “a matter of record but not denied by complainant (Zenaida). ” The Arbiter was of the watch, however , that Alonzo was entitled to relief, because (a) the fees imposed was “harsh and severe but not commensurate with the offense,… postponement, interruption of three (3) weeks.. (being) the right, just and reasonable charges…; ” also because (b) the company had failed “to look into complainant before she was dismissed. “
Acting on the employer’s appeal, the Countrywide Labor Associations Commission rendered judgment on March 3, 1987, preserving the Labor Arbiter’s studies Pacific Mills Inc. features instituted in this Court the special civil action of certiorari at pub praying pertaining to nullification with the judgment with the NLRC for having been made with grave abuse of discretion.
In the comment on it, 7 needed of him by the Court, the Solicitor General opined that:… the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC apparently failed to take into consideration the very fact that Zenaida Alonzo was dismissed not really because of this remote act (of assault against her superior) but rather due to numerous and repeated violations of business rules and regulations. It was only this kind of last episode which required Pacific Generators, Inc. to finally eliminate her services. It is the wholeness of the infractions committed by the employee that ought to have been regarded as in identifying whether or not there exists just cause for her termination. Issue: if there is simply cause for her dismissal
Decisive of the controversy is a judgment from the Court en banc in Wenphil Organization v. NLRC, promulgated in February almost eight, 1989, 12 in which the next policy pronouncements were made: Thus in the present circumstance, where the private respondent, who also appears to be of violent temper, caused trouble during business office hours as well as defied his superiors as they tried to pacify him, must not be rewarded with reemployment and back income. It may encourage him to do even worse and will render a mockery from the rules of discipline that employees must observe.
Under the circumstances, the dismissal from the private surveys takers for just cause should be managed. He does not have right to go back to his former employer. However , the petitioner (employer) must nevertheless be held to account for inability to extend to private surveys takers his directly to an investigation before causing his dismissal. The rule is usually explicit because above mentioned. The dismissal of an employee must be for only or authorized cause and after due procedure (Section one particular, Rule XIV, Implementing Rules of the Labor Code).
Whilst it is true that Pacific Generators, Inc. had not complied with the requirements of due process prior to removing Zenaida Alonzo from job, it is also true that therefore, in the actions before the Labor Arbiter through which Zenaida Alonzo had obviously taken active part, completely succeeded in satisfactorily proving the percentage by Zenaida of many infractions of firm rules and regulations justifying termination of her job.
Under the situations, it is obvious that, while the Solicitor General features pointed out, the continuance in the service in the latter is patently inimical to her employer’s interests which, citing San Miguel Company v. NLRC, 11 legislation, in guarding the legal rights of the laborer authorizes not oppression neither self-destruction with the employer. And it was oppressive and unjust in the premises to need reinstatement from the employee. WHEREFORE, the petition is awarded and the challenged decision of the respondent Commission payment dated March 23, 1987 and that with the Labor Arbiter thereby affirmed, are NULLIFIED AND SET BESIDES. However , the petitioner can be ordered to pay non-public respondent a proportionate portion of the 13th month pay thanks her, amounting to P351. 00 along with indemnify her in the total of P1, 000. 00. No costs.
ABANTE sixth is v. LAMADRID BEARING & PARTS CORP
EMPERMACO N. ABANTE, JUNIOR., petitioner, versus LAMADRID BEARING & PARTS CORP. and JOSE LAMADRID, President, participants. [G. R. No . 159890 Might 28, 2004]
SPECIFICS: Petitioner was obviously a salesman of respondent organization earning a commission of 3% in the total paid out up revenue covering the whole area of Mindanao. Aside from offering, he was as well tasked with collection. Respondent corporation through its chief executive, often necessary Abante to report to a specific area and occasionally required him to go to Manila to attend conferences.
Later on, poor blood ensued between the get-togethers due to some bad accounts that Lamadrid forced petitioner to cover. Later on petitioner discovered that surveys takers had informed his consumers not to handle petitioner because it no longer recognized him like a commission sales person. Petitioner filed a problem for illegitimate dismissal with money says against surveys takers company as well as its president, Jose Lamadrid.
By way of defense, participants countered that petitioner had not been its worker but a freelance salesman upon commission basis.
ISSUE: If petitioner, as a commission sales person, is an employee of respondent corporation.
KEPT: To determine the living of an employee-employer relationship, the SC used the 4 fold evaluation: 1) the manner of variety and engagement; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the presence or a shortage of the power of dismissal; and (4) the presence or absence of the power of control.
Applying the aforementioned test, a great employer-employee relationship is remarkably absent in this instance. It is authentic that having been paid in commission however no sampling was enforced therefore a dismal overall performance would not bring about a earth for termination. There was no specific office hours having been required to observe. He was not really designated to conduct solutions at a particular area or perhaps time. This individual pursued his selling with no interference or supervision through the company. The organization did not suggest the manner of selling goods. While he was sometimes needed to report to Manila, these were simply intended to guide him. In addition, petitioner was free to present his companies to other companies.
Art. 280 is not just a crucial aspect because it simply determines two kinds of staff. It doen; t apply where there is not a employer-employee romance. While the term commission beneath Article 96 of the LC was construed as being included in the term “wage”, there is no categorical pronouncement the payment of commission can be conclusive evidence of the existence of an employee-employer romance.
R TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION versus ROGELIO EJANDRA
G. R. No . 148508 May well 20, 2004
Rogelio Ejandra performed as a shuttle bus driver of R Transportation Corporation and was paid on a 10% commission basis. He knowledgeable R Transport’s general manager that his license was confiscated after he was apprehended for a targeted traffic violation. The manager provided him cash to receive his permit. Ejandra attended the LTO office everyday but it was only after a week that he was in a position to get back his license. When he reported back to work, the manager told him to hold back until his services had been needed once again. When asked how long he previously to rest, the manager did not give a definite time. Considering himself terminated, Ejandra registered a grievance for unlawful dismissal against R Transportation.
R Transport denied Ejandra’s allegations and claimed that he deserted his work; that this individual lied about his license being confiscated; and that he was not an employee because theirs was a contract of lease but not of work, being paid out on commission basis.
The labor arbiter rendered his decision in favor of Ejandra, finding his dismissal to be devoid of just trigger and PLACING YOUR ORDER R-Transport to REINSTATE him
to his past position without loss of eldership elders and other benefits and to pay him backwages from the time of his dismissal until actual reinstatement. The NLRC confirmed this decision. R Travel filed in the Court of Appeals a petition pertaining to certiorari on the ground that the NLRC committed serious abuse of discretion in affirming the choice of the labor arbiter. The CA rejected the petition.
1 . Would Ejandra forego his task?
installment payments on your Is there an employer-employee romantic relationship between L Transport and Ejandra? three or more. Was personal respondent ignored for just trigger?
1 . No . R Transfer failed to show the requisites constituting abandonment. Ejandra’s deficiency was justified because the LTO did not discharge his license until after having a week. He never intended to sever his employment when he reported intended for work as shortly as he received his permit back. In the event that he abandoned his work, R Transportation should have reported such simple fact to the closest Regional Workplace of the Division of Labor and Employment in accordance with Section 7, Rule XXIII, Book V of Department Purchase No . on the lookout for, series of 97.
2 . Certainly. R Transfer invoked the Supreme Court’s rulings around the right associated with an employer to dismiss an employee. By adopting said rulings, R Transfer impliedly accepted that it was the employer of Ejandra. The fact that Ejandra was paid about commission basis did not eliminate the presence of a great employee-employer marriage (Article 97(f), Labor Code).
3. Number It also violated Ejandra’s right to procedural thanks process by simply not giving him the mandatory notice and hearing provided for in Section 2, Regulation XXIII, Publication V of Department Purchase No . 9., series of 97 (Rules Putting into action Book Versus of the Labor Code).
Ramos vs The courtroom of Is attractive () 380 SCRA 467
Petitioner Erlinda Ramos was recommended to undergo an operation for the removal of her stone in the gallbladder. She was referred to Doctor Hosaka, a surgeon, whom agreed to do the operation. The operation wasscheduled on Summer 17, 1985 in the De aquellas Santos Clinic.
Erlinda was admitted to the medicalcenter the day before the operation. On the next day, she was ready for operation as early as six: 30am. About 9: 40, Dr . Hosaka has not however arrived. By 10 are, Rogelio planned to pull out his wife coming from theoperating room. Dr . Hosaka finally found 12: 15 pm much more than 3 hours of the timetabled operation. Dr . Guiterres tried to intubate Erlinda. The toe nail beds of Erlinda were bluish yellowing in her left hand. For 3 pm hours, Erlinda was being wheeled for the Intensive treatment Unit and stayed right now there for a month. Since theill-fated operation, Erlinda remained in comatose state until the girl died. The family of Ramos sued these people for problems. Issue:
WON there was an employee-employer romantic relationship that been around between the Medical Center and Drs. Hosaka and Guiterrez. Organised:
Not any employer-employee between your doctors and hospital. Private Hospitals hire, flames and workout real control over their attending and visiting consultant personnel. While consultants are not theoretically employees, the control practiced, the hiring and the proper toterminate consultants fulfill the hallmarks of an employer-employee relationship except for payment of wages.
The control evaluation is deciding. In making use of the four fold test out, DLSMC can not be considered an employer of the respondent doctors. Ithas been constantly held that in determining whether a great employer- employee relationship existsbetween the parties, the following components must be present: (1) collection and diamond of companies; (2) payment of pay; (3) the strength to hire and fire; and (4) the ability to control not simply the end to beachieved, but the means to be taken in reaching such an end. The hospital would not hire consultants but it accredits and funds him the privilege of maintaining a clinicand/or acknowledging patients. It’s the patient who pays the consultants.
A healthcare facility cannot write off theconsultant yet he may drop his benefits granted by the hospital. The hospitals accountability is limited
toproviding the individual with the preferred room lodging and other items that will make certain that thedoctors instructions are completed. The court docket finds that there is no employer-employee relationship between the doctors and the hospital
FILAMER CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE v IAC
Aug 17, 1992
Funtecha was a operating student, like a part-time janitor and scholar of Filamer Christian Commence. One day, Funtecha, who previously had a scholar’s driver’s license, wanted Masa, the college driver and son from the school chief executive, to allow him to drive the school vehicle. Assenting to the demand, Masastopped the automobile he was driving a car and allowed Funtecha to adopt over driving. However , following negotiating a pointy dangerous suppress, Funtecha came upon a fast going truck to ensure that hehad to swerve towards the right to prevent a accident. Upon swerving, they knocked a pedestrian walking in hislane. The pedestrian died due to the crash. ISSUE:
Won Filamer Christian Institute ought to be held accountable
Initial it should be noted that driving the vehicle to and from the house of the college president had been bothAllan and Funtecha reside is an act in furtherance from the interest with the petitioner-school.
The college jeep had to be brought home so the school driver can use that to retrieve students the next day of thenext school time. Thus, in learning how to travel while taking vehicle residence in the direction of Allan’s home, Funtechadefinitely was not creating a joy ride or pertaining to enjoyment, although ultimately, to get the assistance for which the jeepwas designed by the petitioner school. (School president got knowledge of Funtecha’s desire to discover ways to drive. ) Court is usually thus restricted to conclude that the act of Funtecha in taking over the steering wheel was onedone intended for and in behalf of his employer for which act the school cannot refuse any responsibility byarguing it turned out done further than the scope of his janitorial tasks.
The fact that Funtecha has not been the school new driver does not alleviate the school in the burden of rebutting the presumption of neglect on their part. It really is sufficient which the act of driving during the time of theincident was for the advantage of the school.
Petitioner school is unsucssesful to show that this exercised persistance of a very good father of the family. Petitioner has not demonstrated that it features set forth laws and regulations as will prohibit a single of itsemployees from acquiring control over it is vehicles if one is certainly not the official new driver or prohibiting theauthorized new driver from letting anyone than him to operate a vehicle the vehicle. Furthermore, school had failed toshow that it enforce sanctions or warned their employees up against the use of the vehicles by persons other than the driver. Thus, Filamer comes with an obligation to pay injuries for harm arising from the unskilled fashion by whichFuntecha drove the vehicle since the rules imposes after the employers vicarious liability for works or omissions of the employees.
The liability of the workplace, under Document 2180, is usually primary and solidary. Yet , the employer shallhave recourse up against the negligent employee for no matter what damages will be paid towards the heirs of theplaintiff. In Labor Code’s Rule X
The offer “within the scope of their assigned tasks” (found in CC) intended for purposes of raising thepresumption of liability of an employer, includes any act made by an employee, in furtherance of theinterests of the employer or perhaps for the account from the employe in the time the infliction of the injury or damage Even if somehow, the employee driving a car the vehicle made some gain benefit act, the existence of a presumptive liability with the employer is determined by answering problem of whether or not theservant was at enough time of the crash performing any act in furtherance of his master’s business. Secret X, which gives for the exclusion of working college students in the career coverage and on whichthe petitioner is anchoring its protection, is merely a guide to the observance of the hypostatic law onlabor.
It is not the decisive legislation in a detrimental suit for damage implemented by an injured person during avehicular accident against a working pupil of a institution and against the school on its own. Present casedoes not involve a labor dispute. A great implementing secret on labor cannot be utilized by an employer s a protect to avoid legal responsibility under thesubstantive provisions in the CC.
G. R. Number 75112 August 17, 1992
FILAMER CHRISTIAN COMPANY, petitioner
HON. ADVANCED APPELLATE COURT DOCKET, HON. ENRIQUE P. SUPLICO, in his capability as Evaluate of the Regional Trial Court docket, Branch XIV, Roxas Town and POTENCIANO KAPUNAN, SR., respondents. GUTIERREZ, JR., L.:
Funtecha was obviously a working student, being a or perhaps janitor and a college student of petitioner Filamer. Having been, in relation to the college, an employee whether or not he was assigned to clean the college premises for only two (2) several hours in the morning of each school day. Having a scholar driver’s license, Funtecha requested the driver, Allan Zaman, and was allowed, for taking over the car while the last mentioned was on his way house one past due afternoon. It is important to note the place wherever Allan lives is also your house of his father, the college president.
Allan Masa turned over the automobile to Funtecha only after driving down a road, a fast moving pick up truck with obvious lights nearly hit these people so that they had to swerve for the right to avoid a collision. Upon swerving, they heard a sound as if a thing had knocked against the motor vehicle, but they would not stop to check on. Actually, the Pinoy vehicle swerved on the pedestrian, Potenciano Kapunan who was walking in his lane inside the direction against vehicular targeted traffic, and strike him. CONCERN:
WON there exists an employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and its co-defendant Funtecha. HELD: Certainly. Funtecha is definitely an employee of petitioner Filamer.
He need not have an established appointment for the driver’s situation in order that the petitioner could possibly be held responsible for his largely negligent take action, it being sufficient the fact that act of driving during the time of the occurrence was intended for the benefit of the petitioner. Hence, the fact that Funtecha had not been the school rider or was not acting in the scope of his cleaning duties will not relieve the petitioner with the burden of rebutting the presumption juris tantum that there was negligence in its component either inside the selection of a servant or employee, or in the guidance over him.
The petitioner has failed to demonstrate proof of it is having exercised the required diligence of a very good father of a family over its staff Funtecha and Allan.